June 15, 201511 yr Thanks Ebert. The characters had no depth. Sorry, that made me chuckle. Glad I could provide some levity to your day. :lol2: Actually, I was borrowing the line from some other critic who didn't like it, because of those two reasons.
June 15, 201511 yr Some guy was on one of the network morning shows and he said that Spielberg got the title wrong in his first movie, that the Dinosaurs featured in the movies were not around during the Jurassic Period. They were from the Cretaceous Period. So, the first movie should have been called "Cretaceous Park".
June 15, 201511 yr Some guy was on one of the network morning shows and he said that Spielberg got the title wrong in his first movie, that the Dinosaurs featured in the movies were not around during the Jurassic Period. They were from the Cretaceous Period. So, the first movie should have been called "Cretaceous Park". The whole thing is flawed from that perspective. Want to know how big a velociraptor was? It was the size of a darned goose. That's just not scary, so Spielberg actually filled the movie with Deinonychus, but used the name "Velociraptor" anyway.
June 16, 201511 yr Some guy was on one of the network morning shows and he said that Spielberg got the title wrong in his first movie, that the Dinosaurs featured in the movies were not around during the Jurassic Period. They were from the Cretaceous Period. So, the first movie should have been called "Cretaceous Park". Yeah, but that just doesn't have the same ring to it.
June 16, 201511 yr The whole thing is flawed from that perspective. Want to know how big a velociraptor was? It was the size of a darned goose. That's just not scary, so Spielberg actually filled the movie with Deinonychus, but used the name "Velociraptor" anyway. Seriously, who cares? Do you watch movies expecting them to be feasible or realistic?
June 16, 201511 yr Seriously, who cares? Do you watch movies expecting them to be feasible or realistic? Question for a question: why does the way I watch movies bother you at all?
June 16, 201511 yr Dinosaur expert critiques dinosaur toys (but doesn't ruin your childhood) http://on.mash.to/1dI9M4N
June 16, 201511 yr Question for a question: why does the way I watch movies bother you at all? It doesn't. Just trying to figure out why anyone would watch a movie that is clearly made up and then pick it apart for all it's factual inaccuracies. Just seems a waste of time. :idunno:
June 16, 201511 yr It doesn't. Just trying to figure out why anyone would watch a movie that is clearly made up and then pick it apart for all it's factual inaccuracies. Just seems a waste of time. :idunno: As a fan of science fiction, I've always loved that line where the science ends and the fiction begins. To my mind, the best sci-fi was always when the writers would exaggerate one element into the realm of the fantastic (in this case, "What if we could use fossilized remains and preserved DNA to recreate dinosaurs?), but the rest of the story proceeded as if it were the real world. Jurassic Park comes darn close in that regard. That's why I love the book and why I love the movie. It's an editorial decision for Spielberg... that's all. Of course "velociraptor" sounds better than "deinonychus". It creates an innacuracy but not a fatal one since, as I said above, the original book and the original film are both fantastic as far as I'm concerned.
June 17, 201511 yr As a fan of science fiction, I've always loved that line where the science ends and the fiction begins. To my mind, the best sci-fi was always when the writers would exaggerate one element into the realm of the fantastic (in this case, "What if we could use fossilized remains and preserved DNA to recreate dinosaurs?), but the rest of the story proceeded as if it were the real world. Jurassic Park comes darn close in that regard. That's why I love the book and why I love the movie. It's an editorial decision for Spielberg... that's all. Of course "velociraptor" sounds better than "deinonychus". It creates an innacuracy but not a fatal one since, as I said above, the original book and the original film are both fantastic as far as I'm concerned. The term "poetic license" comes to mind.
June 17, 201511 yr Have not seen it, but have heard mixed reviews. __________________________________________ Also, PETA is glad that the film producers did not use real dinosaurs. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
June 17, 201511 yr As a fan of science fiction, I've always loved that line where the science ends and the fiction begins. To my mind, the best sci-fi was always when the writers would exaggerate one element into the realm of the fantastic (in this case, "What if we could use fossilized remains and preserved DNA to recreate dinosaurs?), but the rest of the story proceeded as if it were the real world. Jurassic Park comes darn close in that regard. That's why I love the book and why I love the movie. It's an editorial decision for Spielberg... that's all. Of course "velociraptor" sounds better than "deinonychus". It creates an innacuracy but not a fatal one since, as I said above, the original book and the original film are both fantastic as far as I'm concerned. Was it a velociraptor in the book or did Spielberg change it. How much of the inaccuracies are from the book and not an invention of Spielberg?
June 17, 201511 yr Some guy was on one of the network morning shows and he said that Spielberg got the title wrong in his first movie, that the Dinosaurs featured in the movies were not around during the Jurassic Period. They were from the Cretaceous Period. So, the first movie should have been called "Cretaceous Park". Didn't Spielberg just use the book as a basis...seems like the guy that wrote the book would be the one to blame. Michael Crichton should get the blame instead of Spielberg IMO.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.